As I understand it, the Fixed Term Parliament Act allows for an early election if there is a vote of no confidence, or if a motion is passed with the support of 2/3 of the House.Clearly the latter is a higher bar, so what is to stop a government from claiming to have no confidence in itself in order to? Aside from good practice, decency and good sense obviously.

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act ought more properly to be called the Coalition Protection Act. A Government with a working majority will never have much trouble calling an election when it pleases. So it has to resort to a bit of constitutional tomfoolery to no-confidence itself. So what? It's no more ridiculous than much Parliamentary frippery, and would soon be forgotten when the election was underway.

Yes. If the Government relied on the Parliament Act to repeal the FTPA it would be stretching the definition of an early election.

I think it much more practical for the Government to challenge the Opposition to vote in favour of an early election. It might well not be necessary to no-confidence itself; the 2/3 majority may well be achievable. If it does come down to that, it is no more odd for the Government to vote that it has no confidence in itself than it would be for the Opposition to try to do the opposite.

Smouldering Stoat wrote:I think it much more practical for the Government to challenge the Opposition to vote in favour of an early election. It might well not be necessary to no-confidence itself; the 2/3 majority may well be achievable.